Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 26 April 2012 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E768921F8839; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iI4SIVwTwqnJ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E485421F8838; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3Q09YkK003170; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335398980; i=@resistor.net; bh=xG41dG7lohm3o22oAnF3zS9kpF7YxxGdk1ylKJ9R0us=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NvaiyIR7Oo/gxaGUhuPsBzE7d/+BFHxWm/dAwv+ae/AaytIZC53KmSAabe2ia59U3 u/ndTN6WVhUVaH2X+EponvMhggkOclOUFtSUivBM7s4/BQw8DggPe6UMZe5pYbnSFM 9VckqqsTRVWLQVWsFXGV95QWIKliyHBrDHWrbV2U=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1335398980; i=@resistor.net; bh=xG41dG7lohm3o22oAnF3zS9kpF7YxxGdk1ylKJ9R0us=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZYSjZO1QdZo4bkkid/pf8l4uSpDKH8fOaGdA8mIjWbb/fAwnvmtm2OENtR7EJafvW 8RQYbabULBg84GaV3Bpb80MHWNsJQuj/Cl8jrInMiVem2OKAS5fRTTn0TJExB9tsqB tfyiO/fOIPQZlplDJOeRA9WZfg0DVRxNfbzvYDlo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120425170025.0af68d50@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:08:48 -0700
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928101C5B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F97BEAE.9000707@tana.it> <4F9883CA.9050502@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [marf] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-marf-as
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:09:45 -0000

Hi Benoit,
At 16:07 25-04-2012, Benoit Claise wrote:
>You know, I see rfc6449, published a few months back, and I see this 
>document draft-ietf-marf-as-14, which will be published approx. 6 months
>And I'm wondering, as someone not involved in this WG...
>- Why do we have two almost similar documents?
>- Why RFC 6449 could not be a MARF document?

 From RFC 6449:

   "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
    be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
    translate it into languages other than English."

As a note to John Levine, RFC 6449 clearly says that "it does not 
represent the consensus of the IETF."

Regards,
-sm